Wallet status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description goes well beyond them: it enumerates the state values (encrypted/legacy/none), clarifies that address is the ACTIVE account while accounts lists all accounts, and discloses that only the user can switch accounts in the wallet app. It also reassures no password is needed, which is actionable auth context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then structured field-by-field. Every sentence carries information, though the trailing 'No password needed — read only' partially restates the readOnlyHint annotation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With zero parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies exactly the missing pieces: what fields come back, what the state values mean, and how the active-account concept relates to sibling tools. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is absent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description additionally documents the shape of the returned object (index, address, label, active index), which is useful given no output schema exists, though these are return values rather than input semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns the wallet's state and address') and enumerates the exact fields returned (state, address, accounts, account). The sibling set (get_balances, get_history, request_payment) is clearly distinct, and the description anchors its scope to the active account rather than those other resources.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied rather than stated: it explains that balances, history, and payment requests all key off the active account, which tells the agent why it might call this first, but it never explicitly says when to use this tool versus get_balances/get_history, nor names an alternative.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.